IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I'd expect the parts of the country most susceptible to gang violence - big cities with large ghetto-ised areas, easy access to smuggled drugs from other countries, and high rates of poverty - to have worse gang violence problems as a result of easy access to guns. I wouldn't expect it to make a whole lot of difference to areas which I wouldn't expect to be susceptible to gang violence anyway to have worse problems as a result. For example, if the UK were to legalise guns, I would expect gang violence in London and Manchester to worsen, but wouldn't expect to see much of an effect in Bedfordshire, Slough, High Wycombe etc.

To answer your question though, beyond the obvious logical point of "it's easier to shoot people if you have a gun", I don't have any evidence showing a strong correlation between countries that legalising guns leads to higher levels of gang violence. We just don't have a big enough sample size. Perhaps if you had cities like San Francisco or Miami in america where guns were illegal and effectively banned it might be possible to make a comparison, but at present I don't think we have the available data.

Well, pistols were effectively banned and long guns very strictly regulated in Washington DC from 1976 til 2008. Despite this the city suffered from perhaps the worst violent crime rate in the country for much of that period.

Edit: and as an add-on, I haven't noticed anyone here discussing the fact that the murder rate has been steadily dropping in the US for more than a decade, despite no new gun laws, and the sun-setting of the assault weapons ban. In fact, the rate is barely above levels last seen in the 1950's.

Well, pistols were effectively banned and long guns very strictly regulated in Washington DC from 1976 til 2008. Despite this the city suffered from perhaps the worst violent crime rate in the country for much of that period.

Well, pistols were effectively banned and long guns very strictly regulated in Washington DC from 1976 til 2008. Despite this the city suffered from perhaps the worst violent crime rate in the country for much of that period.

Sure, but that's in the middle of a country where guns are easily available a few hours drive away. It's not difficult for a criminal to get their hands on a gun in a banned state when the state next door is selling them. Contrast to London where none of the country is selling handguns, and you literally cannot get to London from a country that is selling them without going through customs and risking a search.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Edit: and as an add-on, I haven't noticed anyone here discussing the fact that the murder rate has been steadily dropping in the US for more than a decade, despite no new gun laws, and the sun-setting of the assault weapons ban. In fact, the rate is barely above levels last seen in the 1950's.

That makes perfect sense. Guns are a factor in gun crime, but there are plenty of other factors. If the other factors are reduced, then gun crime goes down despite the legality of guns.

__________________"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

If we recover a firearm we put its details into our computer and voila, we have the up to date keepers name and details. If the number has been ground off then there are still ways of trying to recover it to ID the gun. If someone is found with a tampered with gun there are charged with possessing an unlicensed gun.

In the US, the gun lobby caters to what should be recognized as paranoid delusions. Four year ago we had a run on guns and ammunition because the evil black muslim from Kenya had taken over the White House an was going to confiscate all the guns.

So instead of a rational registration system where looking up the last legal owner of a firearm is just a database query, we have a system of paper records held at individual firearms shops. Instead of a simple law requiring a background check that only takes a few minutes for every firearms purchase, we allow private sales to go forward without a check or even any record keeping requirements. We keep the path wide open for diversion of firearms into the criminal trade at negligible risk to the black market dealer.

The rules in Arizona make it legal to buy a firearm in a gun store and resell it in the parking lot 5 minutes later. Never mind that the Federal form you fill out declares it is for your personal use. You are allowed to change your mind 5 minutes later.

Sure, but that's in the middle of a country where guns are easily available a few hours drive away. It's not difficult for a criminal to get their hands on a gun in a banned state when the state next door is selling them. Contrast to London where none of the country is selling handguns, and you literally cannot get to London from a country that is selling them without going through customs and risking a search.

In both Alaska and Hawaii, it's not possible to drive to a nearby state with lax gun laws. Comparing state gun laws and criminal use of firearms in these two states might be informative.

The rules in Arizona make it legal to buy a firearm in a gun store and resell it in the parking lot 5 minutes later. Never mind that the Federal form you fill out declares it is for your personal use. You are allowed to change your mind 5 minutes later.

That would be a very obvious case of making a "straw purchase", which is illegal on the federal level.

This came up in the Fast and Furious investigation. ATF agents were told they did not have probable cause to stop a sale in the parking lot of a gun store immediately after purchase. They had to have proof that the sale was arranged before the purchase was made in the gun shop before detaining either party in the sale or seizing the weapon.

So, Alaska's murder and aggravated assault rates are both much higher than that of Hawaii. How many of those agg assaults were committed with a firearm? Probably very few, while its possible to commit agg assault, it usually means "beating the crap" out of someone. If you shoot someone and they live the charge is usually attempted murder.

In other words, Alaskans are just more violent than Hawaiins with or without firearms.

I'll also note that means Hawaii's murder rate is lower than that of the UK, yet with less restrictive gun laws (even if they are restrictive compared to most other US states).

Here's another stat, if wiki is to be believed:

Quote:

Crime has been a long-standing concern in the United States, with high rates at the beginning of the 20th century compared to parts of Western Europe. In 1916, 198 homicides were recorded in Chicago, a city of slightly over 2 million at the time. This level of crime was not exceptional when compared to other American cities such as New York City, but was much higher relative to European cities, such as London, which then had three times the population but recorded only 45 homicides in the same year.

Given that Chicago had about 4 times as many murders, and 3 times less population than London, its murder rate back then was twelve times higher. Despite 1916 being well before the prohibitive UK gun laws of the 1960's AND before prohibition in the US.

Your point was that I hate the USA. Your point has not been proved when I say in reality I am in disbelief at its gun culture. There are a ton of brilliant things about the USA, it is just we are not dealing with them in this thread about gun control.

I have US relatives, I have been twice, I have worked in Boston as a security guard (unarmed, most of the rest were armed). Now, when I visit again, I think I will go to Hawaii and avoid Alaska.

Your point was that I hate the USA. Your point has not been proved when I say in reality I am in disbelief at its gun culture. There are a ton of brilliant things about the USA, it is just we are not dealing with them in this thread about gun control.

I have US relatives, I have been twice, I have worked in Boston as a security guard (unarmed, most of the rest were armed). Now, when I visit again, I think I will go to Hawaii and avoid Alaska.

There were a total of 31 murders last year in the entire state of Alaska

This came up in the Fast and Furious investigation. ATF agents were told they did not have probable cause to stop a sale in the parking lot of a gun store immediately after purchase. They had to have proof that the sale was arranged before the purchase was made in the gun shop before detaining either party in the sale or seizing the weapon.

Err, the way I heard it was the ATF agents told gun store owners to continue selling to suspicious buyers because it was part of Fast & Furious.

Given that Chicago had about 4 times as many murders, and 3 times less population than London, its murder rate back then was twelve times higher. Despite 1916 being well before the prohibitive UK gun laws of the 1960's AND before prohibition in the US.

It's not worth alot, given we have no way of knowing if crimes were being recorded properly back then, guns were harder to afford if you were poor at the time, and most of london's young men were in france fighting the germans. I'll also add though, that I don't think the Alaska/Hawaii is a very useful comparison either (evne if it does appear to support my point), because of the small size of Alaska and the need for large sample sizes when comparing something as uncommon as murder.

__________________"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

Nessie, I think that what you need to do is not contrast dissimilar states (Alaska and Hawaii will have very different culture/climate/situations) but how things change when gun laws within that state change. For example, since civilian conceal carry became widely permitted in that USA (in the last decade or two) did this lead to blood in the streets, or did homicide rates stay the same (or even decrease)?

Prosecutors repeatedly rebuffed Voth's requests. After examining one suspect's garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn't bought the gun for himself.

The damn ATF agents did not arrest people after being told by the prosecutor that they could not arrest them.

In both Alaska and Hawaii, it's not possible to drive to a nearby state with lax gun laws. Comparing state gun laws and criminal use of firearms in these two states might be informative.

Compare rates of forcible rape (not usually a gun crime) per 100,000 population: Alaska, 58.1 Hawaii, 31.6. Are there more phalli in private hands in Alaska than in Hawaii? Your crime stats measure underlying aggression, not the instruments.

The damn ATF agents did not arrest people after being told by the prosecutor that they could not arrest them.

I can't believe that story is being bandied about on this forum. It's absolute hogwash. R.Mackey (not exactly known for his conservative bias) has pointed out some of the more glaringproblems in that piece.

The ATF did tell gun store owners to continue selling firearms to people that were suspicious.

__________________"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

There are many problems with this piece, besides it is written as an opinion piece, not a news story. A very significant problem that isn't even mentioned in the piece is that, as CBS's Sharyl Atkisson discovered, the Obama administration demanded that gun dealers make gun sales that they didn't want to make. Here is an example of several gun dealers who only made these sales because they were told to do so by the BATF told their story to Atkisson, and they wanted to know what liability that they will face if they make gun sales that they thought were to people who were prohibited from getting the guns.

The Fortune article indicated that the US Attorney did not allow suspects or firearms to be detained due to the high bar set for proving straw purchases. Technically the US Attorney's office is part of the Executive branch. But calling it the Obama Administration is misleading at best.

ETA: I also note that the definition of opinion piece in that rebuttal is rather strange. The Fortune article was full of the kind of events, people, dates and numbers that one expects in a news piece.

If a California resident buys from a dealer in Nevada, the dealer will ship it to a licensed dealer in California. But in a private sale, we have to trust that the buyer will follow the law. A buyer who may have gone to the private sales market specifically because he can't pass a background check.

So, if the buyer and seller won't follow the law, we pass more laws?

We've got federal, state and local laws in place at one level of restriction or more from coast to coast - bad actors act badly, and when a guy in Jersey or NY commits a crime, a guy in Oregon that never did anything worse than drive faster than the posted speed limit has to hold his tongue, spell the word rhinoceros while standing on one leg before he can buy or sell a firearm.

That pretty much sums up gun control laws from 1968 on.

I've yet to find a bad actor that wanted a piece and didn't have one, but I've seen some very surprised folks when they find out that it's a ten day waiting period before they can take possession of a firearm they've legally purchased - and you must have a handgun safety certificate as well as pass a safe handling test at point of sale to legally purchase a handgun.

Meanwhile, bad actors are shooting each other con mucho gusto everywhere with no relief in sight. California has one of the highest scores from the Brady Campaign based on how strict the gun laws are:

The Fortune article indicated that the US Attorney did not allow suspects or firearms to be detained due to the high bar set for proving straw purchases. Technically the US Attorney's office is part of the Executive branch.

It was not the US Attorney's office that leaned on gun dealers to make sales that they otherwise would not. Some other Federal office.

Current Federal law sets a reasonable standard for purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The buyer does not have a history of criminal behavior or mental illness. The buyers history is verified via an instant check system that only takes a few minutes and the buyer is registered as the curent owner of the firearm. I am proposing applying the same procedure to all firearm sales. If Joe Bob can't pass an instant check because he pistol whipped his girlfriend a few years ago, he can't get around the problem by purchasing from a private seller.

It was not the US Attorney's office that leaned on gun dealers to make sales that they otherwise would not. Some other Federal office.

I find this curious. Why would you contact the ATF or anyone else if you weren't going to sell the guns in the first place? You are describing a business model that seems a bit odd, at least if profit is a motive.

I find it much more likely that dealers called to make sure their butts were covered, which they were, since the sales were not illegal. Or, if they were illegal, now that this has come to light, have any dealers been prosecuted?

If I might just jump in here, a moment. The talk has so far been about Alaska and Hawaii, both of which, if only for geographical reasons, special cases. Vermont may be more representative. To all intents and purposes, there is virtually no gun control in Vermont, barring the usual restrictions about schools and other public places. No concealed permit is necessary, and buying a gun is just a little more difficult than buying underwear. In fact, it is possible to interpret the State's consitution as requiring all able-bodied persons to own firearms or to pay a fee for defraying the cost of someone else doing it for you.

Even so, while I don't have the numbers in front of me, Vermont has almost the lowest per-capita rate of gun-related crime in the United States. You can argue causation and correlation all you want, I'm merely stating it as a standalone fact which appears to confound arguments about more guns equalling more violence.

BTW, I lived in Alaska for five+ years, and I believe the argument that Alaskans are more violent has some validity, due primarily to environemental factors (isolation, long periods without sunlight, etc) and social attitudes (an excessively intense macho culture).

And one other thing. I sort of skipped thrugh the thread to get to this point, but I don't believe I saw anyone directly mentioning the Second Amendment. The simple fact is that the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits the government from "infringing" on the right to bear arms, whether for private or public safety (myself, I own guns because I enjoy target shooting). Taking all considerations into account, I am dead-set against repealing or amending a single word in the Bill of Rights, on the idea that once you amend or repeal part of it, that puts a crack in the dam that can never be repaired.

Nessie, I think that what you need to do is not contrast dissimilar states (Alaska and Hawaii will have very different culture/climate/situations) but how things change when gun laws within that state change. For example, since civilian conceal carry became widely permitted in that USA (in the last decade or two) did this lead to blood in the streets, or did homicide rates stay the same (or even decrease)?

The UK stats look high as they include all forms of assault from simple to to serious injury and permanent disfigurement. We are a people up for a fight and as I said before thank goodness we don't do guns or else I think our murder rate would be higher than the USA.

The Hawaii and Alaska comparison was on a suggestion of two states where you cannot just pop over the border into an easy to buy state to get your gun.

To all intents and purposes, there is virtually no gun control in Vermont,... Vermont has almost the lowest per-capita rate of gun-related crime in the United States. You can argue causation and correlation all you want, I'm merely stating it as a standalone fact which appears to confound arguments about more guns equalling more violence.

Sounds like Kennesaw, GA:

"In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families""
"Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages. "
"The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county."

"The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession law."

Note: Fun facts like the above aside, I am not going to argue about guns causing less crime overall. What I will argue is that the rate of violent crime is down to societal/cultural factors and those are what needs to be addressed (as opposed to the emotion driven "ban teh scary guns!", which hits law abiding gun owners, while negligibly impacting criminals).

"In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families""
"Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages. "
"The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county."

"The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession law."

Note: Fun facts like the above aside, I am not going to argue about guns causing less crime overall. What I will argue is that the rate of violent crime is down to societal/cultural factors and those are what needs to be addressed (as opposed to the emotion driven "ban teh scary guns!", which hits law abiding gun owners, while negligibly impacting criminals).

Ah yes, the town were the police chief claimed that burglaries dropped after the town mandated that all residents own a firearm. But in fact he simply made up the numbers.

BTW, I lived in Alaska for five+ years, and I believe the argument that Alaskans are more violent has some validity, due primarily to environemental factors (isolation, long periods without sunlight, etc) and social attitudes (an excessively intense macho culture).

......

So it is a violent state with easy access to guns, that is a recipe for disaster.

If I might just jump in here, a moment. The talk has so far been about Alaska and Hawaii, both of which, if only for geographical reasons, special cases. Vermont may be more representative. To all intents and purposes, there is virtually no gun control in Vermont, barring the usual restrictions about schools and other public places. No concealed permit is necessary, and buying a gun is just a little more difficult than buying underwear. In fact, it is possible to interpret the State's consitution as requiring all able-bodied persons to own firearms or to pay a fee for defraying the cost of someone else doing it for you.

Even so, while I don't have the numbers in front of me, Vermont has almost the lowest per-capita rate of gun-related crime in the United States. You can argue causation and correlation all you want, I'm merely stating it as a standalone fact which appears to confound arguments about more guns equalling more violence.

You're repeating an argument that has been used by many people already in this thread, and it's much too simple an argument to be of any meaningful use. The argument in favour of gun control in my eyes isn't that more guns is perfectly correlated with more murder with guns, it's that easy access to guns for criminals in certain areas already predisposed to gang violence and murder will exacerbate the problem.

The largest city in Vermont has a population of less than 50,000 people. This isn't particularly comparable to say, Los Angeles or Miami with their vast urban areas and much easier access to drugs imported from South America, and so it's not particularly useful when comparing the effects.

Edit: to elaborate, in the UK we have gang violence and drug trafficking and human trafficking, on a lower scale than the US, but we do. But it's concentrated in the largest cities in the country, because that's where the money is and that's where the demand for drugs is. I've said it earlier in the thread but I think it bears repeating: I wouldn't expect any gang violence in towns or cities with less than a few hundred thousand people in the UK if guns were legalised, because those places don't have the demand and don't have large urban areas.

__________________"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

So it is a violent state with easy access to guns, that is a recipe for disaster.

Walking in woods inhabited by brown bears without a firearm is a recipe for disaster. For a frail person, walking alone and without a firearm at night in a city inhabited by thugs is a recipe for disaster.

I've said it earlier in the thread but I think it bears repeating: I wouldn't expect any gang violence in towns or cities with less than a few hundred thousand people in the UK if guns were legalised, because those places don't have the demand and don't have large urban areas.

Then what gun control do you have in mind that will:

1) Minimally impact the law abiding
2) Maximally impact the law breaking

Because almost all of the gun control proposals will minimally impact law breakers while having a great impact on law abiding gun owners.